The Backlash of Virtue Signaling: A Corporate Reckoning
Written on
Chapter 1: Corporate Virtue Signaling Under Scrutiny
Virtue signaling by corporations is increasingly being questioned, and perhaps this shift is a positive development.
When I first came across the headline, "Netflix tells employees to get on board with ideological diversity or get out," it sparked a wave of criticism online. Many comments echoed sentiments from the right, railing against what they perceived as "Woke Corporate America," suggesting that even a regime like North Korea would be preferable to their current situation. However, had they taken the time to read the article, they might have found some solace in Netflix's stance, which appeared to align more closely with their views.
The company's directive arose after employees staged a walkout in response to Dave Chappelle's contentious remarks regarding transgender individuals. Essentially, Netflix was conveying that its staff should be prepared to work on projects that might not sit well with progressive audiences, asserting they would be more inclined to terminate employees than cancel controversial shows. Chappelle's comments during a comedy special included a notable assertion: "Gender is a fact. Every human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass through the legs of a woman to be on Earth. This is a fact."
The corporate realm, particularly in the U.S., has long drawn criticism from both ends of the political spectrum for engaging in "woke-washing" — the act of adopting social justice language to enhance brand image and deflect criticism. A prime example would be the enthusiastic observance of International Women's Day by fast-fashion brands, despite their troubling treatment of garment workers in developing countries — a majority of whom are underpaid women facing harassment.
Everyday instances of woke-washing often go unnoticed as mere corporate hypocrisy, but they've become increasingly linked to social justice movements — be it Black Lives Matter, the Trump era, or the ongoing Ukraine conflict. Recently, McDonald's announced its exit from Russia due to growing public pressure, a move that may inadvertently benefit its local operations, considering they had been sourcing most ingredients domestically.
Section 1.1: The Role of Corporations in Political Discourse
This trend invites a discussion about how involved we want corporations to be in political matters. For many, the preferred answer is minimal involvement. Corporations possess the potential to drive societal change, as evidenced by their role in boycotting South Africa during apartheid. A refusal by a cashier to sell South African grapefruit sparked a nationwide strike, culminating in a total boycott of South African goods by the Irish government.
However, hypocrisy often permeates modern corporate activism. For instance, during the backlash over Disney's response to the controversial "Don't Say Gay" Bill, Governor Ron DeSantis highlighted Disney's cruise offerings to Dominica, where homosexuality remains illegal. Similarly, gaming giant Bethesda faced ridicule for displaying a rainbow flag on Twitter in celebration of Pride, while neglecting to do the same in regions like Russia and Turkey, where such displays could deter business.
Subsection 1.1.1: The Profit Motive Behind Corporate Activism
Anecdotes may not constitute solid data, but the apparent lack of corporate donations, combined with practices like union-busting and inadequate representation of women and minorities in leadership roles, suggests that many companies prioritize their profits above all else. Their embrace of progressive rhetoric seems aimed at appealing to a young, impressionable demographic, all while avoiding the hard work and financial investment necessary for genuine change.
Companies like Ben & Jerry's are often lauded for their social advocacy, yet many overlook the troubling labor practices behind the scenes, such as employing undocumented workers in unsafe conditions for extended hours.
Section 1.2: The Impact of Corporate Activism on Society
Despite the low cost of corporate activism, it can have significant ramifications for democracy. Most corporations are not democratic entities, leading to a lack of transparency in decision-making. Who determines the company's social stance? Is it the CEO, shareholders, or perhaps a PR intern?
These choices are frequently made by a privileged managerial class, which raises concerns about the impact of such power dynamics in an increasingly unequal society. Moreover, corporate activism can exacerbate societal divisions. While some companies aim to attract a liberal workforce, they risk alienating conservative employees, further pushing moderate voices to the fringes.
Chapter 2: The Future of Corporate Activism
The consequences of this divide are stark. We may witness a rise in individuals feeling marginalized, potentially leading them to more radical ideologies. All of this unfolds for the sake of companies seeking cheap publicity.
Interestingly, there are signs that this trend may be waning. In some instances, a backlash from conservatives has prompted corporations to reconsider their positions, as seen with DeSantis revoking Disney's special tax status in Florida. In other cases, companies like ExxonMobil have opted to stop publicly displaying flags for external organizations, perhaps acknowledging the limited appeal of such gestures to their customer base.
Netflix's commitment to its stance on the Chappelle issue, alongside Spotify's decision to maintain Joe Rogan's podcast, illustrates a growing preference for catering to paying customers over the demands of left-wing activists. In a challenging economic climate, a focus on pragmatism is becoming more prominent.
Ultimately, a cultural shift among consumers is essential. Corporations will continue to engage in virtue signaling unless they face scrutiny for their inconsistencies. It may take time before the public's instinctive reaction to corporate activism is one of skepticism. Companies like Lush, known for their cruelty-free products, have built their brand on ethical principles, despite engaging in practices contradictory to those values, such as anti-union policies and underpayment of employees.
Nevertheless, there will always be businesses that genuinely commit to fairness and integrity. Companies like Two Blind Brothers and Chobani may shine even brighter as consumers begin to critically evaluate the larger, more opportunistic segments of the corporate landscape.